The North won the Civil War after it changed the name of the war from The War for Union to The War For Abolition. Until then it was losing. The key is that people are willing to fight for freedom and when weighing the freedom of people to secede against the freedom of slaves, the freedom of slaves won the balance.

The situation today is vastly different: If the Federal government attempted to use force to keep a State in the Union, it would be acting as "owner" of the People of that State.

The talk about the Civil War demonstrating the futility of secession in the US is not merely an immoral repeat of Dred Scott, it is militarily foolish in an age of fourth generation warfare.

The war in the west was already turning in the Union's favor at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863(including the securing of New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, New Madrid, significant stretches of the Mississippi, the bulk of the border states of Kentucky and Missouri and about half of Tennessee).

The war in the east was a different story, but Lincoln found Antietam enough of a win to proceed with the proclamation.

Otherwise, the Civil War set the precedent that secession is beyond the bounds of acceptable political behavior. It even set a precedent of sorts for the Federal government to assume responsibility for communities, with the military districts during reconstruction.

And Article I section 8 does give the Congress the power to suppress revolts:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

Needless to say, the necessary and proper clause is several lines down.

And if secessionists are pursuing a non-republican form of government (say a dictatorial white citizens committee), and causing violence, there is Article IV, section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

But in all likelihood a group trying to actually secure secession today would lack any mandate (some TEA party people, militia men types, the Klan) and represent at best odd cases of civil disobedience by odd balls, or domestic terrorism at worst.

The only precedent set by force is that greater force prevails. "The bounds of acceptable political behavior" are established not by force but reason. If one considers the Civil War to have established a precedent setting "the bounds of acceptable political behavior" it is reasonable to cite Article IV, section 4's "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", as slavery clearly does not provide Republican government to slaves -- although the definition of "Republican Form of Government" is otherwise in need of an operational definition.

There must be an operational definition of "Republican Form of Government" that is so clear and concise that its morality and implications can be understood by anyone of voting age. Moreover, it must be consistent with the US's Declaration of Independence, lest the moral edifice of the US Constitution be ill-founded. A proper, concise, consistent and moral operational definition of "Republican Form of Government" would be:

The primary duty of government, above all others, is to ensure it is practical for consenting adults to leave its jurisdiction to form a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This ensures that the parent government of the new government has an obligation that the new government be a Republic under this operational definition. It also ensures that the new government have territory sufficient to the "practicality" of the new government. Lincoln's "justification" for Union that there was no precedent for a government that provided for its own dissolution is, in actuality, the argument for the Union's immorality and anti-Republican nature.

I suggest reading James Madison's Federalist Papers, essay 10 and 39 I believe. I am not going to go over well-worn ground on representative government, and explanations given on the subject by proponents of the US Constitution.

Madison's thinking about "factions" is incoherent with these words in the Delaration of Independence: "...to form a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I do not give the words of one man, reacting to Shay's Rebellion, authority over the signatories of the Declaration of Independence who were prepared to sacrifice their very lives, let alone my own considered moral sense.

His series of letters were part of a campaign to ratify the US constitution in all of the states of the confederacy (Alexander Hamilton and John Jay also contributed to that specific campaign). And since successful ratification, the US constitution is the law of the land.

Back to your issue with republican form of government, that campaigned outlined a definition of republican government that focused on representative government as the leading characteristic.

The Federalist Papers were not ratified. None of the three authors of the Federalist Papers were signatories to the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, John Jay resigned his position so he could _avoid_ signing the declaration of independence!

When interpreting Original Intent, the Federalist Papers must submit to the authority of the opinions of those who provided for the freedom the authors of the Federalist Papers enjoyed -- including, crucially, the veterans who were so abused by men like those who authored the Federalist Papers, that they were force into rebellion.

Didn't say the Federalist papers were ratified. Not sure why you ejaculated that.

Other drafters of the Constitution did sign the decleration of independence. Not sure why you are going down that line of argument - sounds like a twist on anti-federalism, say demanding an equivalen of a Japanese Genro to give the papal wave on political change.

Not sure why that matters, considering there was a ratification process for the Constitution.

It was you who appealed to the authority of the Federalist Papers. I was responding to that in a way that is actually devastating to your argument and to Madison's posture in the Federalist Papers. During the ratification of the Constitution itself, Madison had to appeal to the danger of the institution of monarchy by such as Shay's Rebellion in order to get the suppression of insurrection and other Federalist positions ratified. This is reasonable. It is _not_ reasonable to claim that the signatories of the Declaration of Independence who went on to put their signatures to the Constitution, thereby adopted as their Original Intent of the US Constitution the posture adopted by the authors of the Federalist Papers.

Kind of makes me angry that between 600k and 800k Americans died deciding session and now people are actually taking about this. I have seen Dem and GOP administrations come and go over 62 years and this is the first time this kind of talk got this loud

Yes, I feel the same. I've lived for more than 20 years in the US, and not in my lifetime I thought I would hear Americans talking about breaking the country. I think this is the first time many Americans feel their country is being destroyed from the inside and the pillars (free markets, constitution, property rights, strong defense, individual freedoms of speech, workships, traditional family values, etc) that made it a superpower are shaking.

Some years ago, after the USSR collapsed, I told some freinds that it wouldnt happen in the US, because dems or reps, libs or cons, in America everyone loves the individual liberties granted by the constitution; instead USSR was a tyranny against the people; when people are deprived of their liberties, incentives for production fail and so eventually reflects on the economics, which is what ultimately caused the Soviet fall.

But now with a different US population, of different mindset, Im not sure if that is longer the case- therefore, I can see where these seccesionists are coming from. They wont achieve much, but I understand. Its either the extinguishing population wanting to secede, OR, the filling new population, like Mexicans in California, wanting to annex it to Mexico or reclaim it...I think there is some council called "La Raza" which are proponents of taking California from the US, or something like that.

While most of the article's points are correct, the idea that it is "illegal" to secede is nonsense.

Self-determination is one of the core rights enshrined in the UN charter. The US has no more right to declare secession illegal than China does vis-a-vis Tibet, or Indonesia did vis-a-vis East Timor.

That being said, one doesn't secede by petitioning the White House, (which is, to put it delicately, retarded) but by electing a secessionist party and holding a referendum, ala Quebec, Catalonia, Scotland, etc. Just because one has a right, doesn't mean there aren't constraints on exercising it.

I think the more accurate way to phrase the issue is that secession is unconstitutional, ie it is not provided for in the US constitution.

Saying secession is "illegal" proclaims that it is a violation of an actual law, that should result in a specific punishment. The Texas v. White case instead established that acts of unilateral secession were "absolutely null", ie that they had no legal weight. It's like if I issued a proclamation declaring myself Emperor of the United States: such a proclamation isn't illegal, but it has no valid force of law.

Of course, this didn't really solve the argument between Lincoln and the Radical Republicans over whether secession was just a fiction to be ignored once federal control of a state was re-established, or if a state nullified its statehood by secession (ie remaining part of the US, but reverting to something like a territory).

It's also unconstitutional for West Virginia to secede from Virginia. It clearly says so.

but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned

and boy howdy did Virginia not agree to let those traitorous hill folk abandon the Commonwealth. And invaded them thereafter numerous times. I want to know where R.M. stands concerning these rabblerousers who insist on this ridiculous proposition that there is a "West Virginia"

I think many people in these comments are forgetting some key facts here:

1) It doesn't matter if it's "illegal" to secede - that's way there's usually wars fought over these processes. Just like if you yourself break a law, the police will use force and arrest you. Force/War is the only response the federal government would have to enforce the illegality of secession.

2) This war would never happen because of nuclear weapons. Almost, if not all states in the south, have lots and lots of nuclear weapons in all kinds of forms - ICBMs, tactical nukes, aircraft-deliverable nukes, etc. I seriously doubt the federal government would invade under threat of nuclear retaliation.

3) If you're outside of the state(s) that are attempting to secede, your opinion on the matter means nothing - your opinion of what your government should do in response means something though, and as outlined above, would have about the same weight as whether or not you think the Earth should revolve around the Sun.

4) There will never be a majority in any state that will vote for violent secession unless the federal government gets really, really nasty (think dictatorship). And the federal government will never accept a voluntary secession. So why's everyone all in a huffy about this?

As for the author's comment about southern republicans platform change, I have a new, crisp, and short version for you:

The nuclear weapons may be physically there. But they aren't in control of the states, and the US military isn't going to cough them up. Or do you actually think that the state National Guards (even assuming that they decided to all go with the seceeding state government) could stand up to the regular Army/Air Force and sieze them?

Who do you think controls the nuclear (and a great deal of other) weapons in the South. Hint: it's the US Military. Not the National Guard, which might (but probably would not) in majority support secession.

We live in different times than during the Civil War. The Federal government has become much stronger, and not necessarily for bad reasons. Ideas, people and actions take place much more quickly now. We need a strong force to meet the challenges.

If any states were to succeed from the Union, that war would be a lot closer in length to Desert Storm than to the second Iraq war; and not to the secessionists advantage.

"Force/War is the only response the federal government would have to enforce the illegality of secession."

I think a coordinated embargo together with Mexico would be a more plausible solution, in case such an absurd scenario would unfold... Texas would be an oil-rich landlocked country... good luck with that.

But the US military tends to be disproportionally patriotic to the United States.

They also take an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

It's not to say that some might not side with their "home states" (although military families move around so much that its questionable how meaningful this term is), but that the kinds of people who would tend to fight the US government in a war of secession don't necesssarily tend to be the kinds of people who join the military in the first place.

Somewhat, but not nearly as much as was the case in the Civil War times - as I recall. But it doesn't matter. People don't think of themselves so much as from a certain state anymore. People are mobile, and so have a national identity, more than state identity.

Texas would anger just as many (and probably more) people as they would satisfy by seceding. At the same time, US soldiers would follow US Army orders for the most part. If any states were allowed to secede, they would soon find themselves without the tax dollars that they had been suckling on from US federal government for decades.

Texas would also find itself on the Northern border of a country it had once been a part of (You can read on about the current rise of that country later in this issue of the Economist). Maybe they will want their former territory in Texas back? Meanwhile, Texas would have no Army or Navy.

On the subject, as far as I am aware, the secession of the USA from the UK is still illegal isnt it? Puts the Supreme Court in a state of constant hypocracy - We can leave England toegther but you cant leave us. ;)

There was the treaty of Paris of 1783 that confirmed US independence..

I think the Durham report calling for responsible government and self-government in Canada basically said we were right in demanding representation (in so many words, many words in fact in 19th century style).

The US provided full political rights and more to those that wished to secede in 1860. Big difference - between lack of voice and empowerment in the two cases.

Firstly I think you missed the ;) indicating that this was friendly humour.

Secondly, whilst there was no representation, taxation was generally to pay for security and for a successfully waged war which defended the integrity of the colonies and cost plenty, The treaty of Paris is a sort of agreement after the fact. The original act was still illegal. The USA could easily have gone the way of peaceful secession like Canada but decided to opt for violence instead, something that has defined its foreign policy ever since.

On secession in general... I'm a big supporter of the right of self-determination. Regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea in some particular case, this idea should have bipartisan appeal.

I add one exception to the right of self-determination and that's if it's for the purpose of violating human rights. E.g., to preserve slavery. You can secede over disagreements about marginal tax rates or NPR funding but not to reinstitute slavery or ban religion. Even if a sovereign state violates human rights, I believe in the right of other states to intervene.

Good point although slightly hard to define. For example, I believe that the Republicans are violating human rights whenever they oppose broadening who benefits from healthcare therefore their views should not be allowed to count.

That is a pretty big exception - no slavery or banning a religion.
What about reinstitution of a form of jim crow or apartheid? Or more subtle forms of marginalization (like property qualifications, measures to suppress the votes of minorities, redlining, etc.)?
Otherwise, allowing secession over conventional political issues seems pretty unrealistic.
What if a territory within a seceding territory wants to secede (say like W. Virginia during the Civil War)? Where does it end?

While I support universal health insurance, I think the basic human right is a right to health care, not a right to affordable health care. If you get basic health care, there's no human rights violation as far as I'm concerned, even if you get a huge bill. So I'd let states secede over ObamaCare but not if they want to deny access to basic health care.

My point is to illustrate our differences in what we view as a human right. I believe affordable healthcare is a basic human right and anyone opposing it should be treated in the same way that any other extremist political viewpoint is held - ignored or worse. The definition of what is a human right in your view could lead to war and your view will differ from revolutionaries.

Even slavery isnt clear cut*. Confederate slavery is clear cut but there have been societies in the past which have treated slaves (generally) with much greater care and provision than the USA currently treats those on the minimum wage. In order to be productive, a slave has to be looked after in terms of health, shelter and family needs, these societies realised this. To be really productive of course means privately educating the slave.

Nowadays the South would not be interested in slavery because it would cost more to keep a slave with basic provision (food, shelter, training) than it does to pay an illegal immigrant an insignificant sum to pick lettuce from your field.

*Note: I am NOT in any way in favour of slavery, it is disgusting, I am simply using it for illustrative purposes.

I would give states the benefit of the doubt and only intervene when the intentions aren't in doubt as in the cases of Jim Crow and apartheid.

If the secession is consensual, there's no need to worry about whether it should be recognized as legitimate. If it's non-consensual, it's up to the non-consenting party to decide what to do next. If you're asking about where I'd draw the line personally, it'd depend on the particularly facts of the situation. The human rights issue is the only non-negotiable line I'd draw. The rest would be a weighing of the facts to see whether it's a good idea or not. I have no objective in principle to even the most extreme form of secession.

Of course, we'll differ oh what we consider human rights. BTW, I find the idea that affordable anything is a human right, even if it can be obtained by those who can't afford it, odd. If the state provides all your basic needs but says you have to pay them back, is that really a violation of human rights? I think it's a bad idea but I don't think it rises to the level of human rights violation.

The slavery I'd consider a violation of human rights is involuntary servitude outside the context of just punishment.

Really? What if basic healthcare (eg ER etc) was only given to the top 1% of earners? What if the state beat you with a stick from the moment you were conveived (through say poverty based malnourishment in utero). We presumably both agree that affordable healthcare is a human right, we just disagree on defining affordable and the scope of 'healthcare'. I am all for strict federal enforcement of Obamacare on reluctant Southern States as a method of preventing human rights violations.

As for slavery, there are societies in history that have treated their slaves with more respect (and given them more rights, although not political ones) than the US provides its employees by law. Minimum wage employess (wage slaves) in the South can vote for whoever they like (the Republican will always win), can not afford any healthcare and can choose one of a large choice of employers from which to receive abuse, long hour demands and minimum compensation from.

I said basic health care is a human right. But I don't believe freedom from bills is. So suppose an uninsured indigent goes to the ER and receives treatment. He gets a bill for $1000 which he can't afford. He dies the next day from an unrelated cause. Were his human rights violated?

Suppose I put a gun to your head and said, 'pay me $1,000' and I will let you live and you agreed to take a loan out and pay me, have I violated your human rights? What if I only put a gun to your head because you had a certain genetic makeup which I didnt like, would that make it any better?

It is only an analogy. If you like we can change it to robbery. I steal £1,000 for you and you get a loan because you need it to live. I stole from you because you were genetically different or perhaps I just flipped a coin. Have I violted your rights?

My point was that bills are not as easy to distinguish from basic human rights as you may assume.

_________________________________________________________

As an aside, I believe that:
The 4D's is usually what stresses people out (Debt, Disease, Death and Divorce for ease of memory*). Human rights violations usually involve pressure on one or more of those

There's no stealing either. What you're basically saying is "When I insert this completely irrelevant immoral activity into the situation, wouldn't you agree that it's immoral?" Let's change it to baking a cake instead. I bake a cake. You're starving so I give it to you. You eat it. I then charge you $10. Did I violate your rights?

Well RR, I guess it depends a bit what happens afterwards I am not able to pay bills? Will I never get food nor health care again (i.e. I have access to it until I prove unable to pay). Do I go to debtor prison? Will I be let off the hook once I lost EVERYTHING, including housing (which I think is the pre-Obama system, correct me if I am wrong) before the bills are struck?

Because all of those cases comes pretty close in my mind to start violating human rights, at least in a rich country.

The primary duty of government, above all others, is to ensure it is practical for consenting adults to leave its jurisdiction to form a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This, singular, human right contains within it all others by the simple fact that any vision of what constitutes a complete laundry list of "human rights" is accommodated.

Yes, it would depend on what happens to debtors. In the US, we have Medicaid and legal protections that prevent most unacceptable outcomes. Medical bills alone won't force you out of your home. Pharmacies aren't required to dispense life-saving drugs to those who can't pay so that would be one crack in our system that could produce unacceptable outcomes but I doubt that's what Omricon had in mind. If I break my arm, go to the ER, get treated, get a bill, and I can't afford it yet have no other rights violated (i.e., I have adequate food, shelter, clothing, etc.), Omricon considers that a human rights violation. I don't.

Sad to see The Economist jump aboard the media hype/bandwagon taking these "Secession movements" on the public petition section of the White House website seriously where ANYONE can make their own petition. Anyone meaning a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist to bored 12-year-old internet trolls.

"Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America."

"The Polyamorous to be allowed to be recognized as legal relationships within the United States"

"Establish new legal system of motorcycle riding "Judges" who serve as police, judge, jury, and executioner all in one."

Even worse, ANYONE can sign. Regardless of Texan residency, or even citizenship of the United States as "signatories" of these "petitions" are not even verified. I had British and Canadian friends "sign" a "secession" petition for a laugh. The same "Texans" are probably creating and "signing" the Secession movements for Texas and all the other states. I was able to see on the Texan "petition", signatories from 6 different states.

Disappointing that even the venerated Economist didn't even check and double check their facts.

Ever try to make sense instead of rambling?
-
I mean do you have anything to add to the conversation other than sophomoric rants and childish tantrums that make no logical sense whatsoever.
-
None of your post are even remotely on topic.

Yes, but first, The Economist has long had a sense of humour, so likely appreciates the entertainment value of this topic. And second, it provides an opportunity to write a bit of background for historical interest. Not everything need be dead serious.

I just enjoy the irony that Texas succeeded fro Mexico because it wanted to become part of the United States (Most of the rich population were on US origins to begin with). Now it's at the forefront of a small succession scandal. How times have changed.

I think by 1835 Americans comprised the majority of in Tejas (seems the Spanish had a tough time settling its northern frontiers). Some estimates that are probably debatable:
30,000 Anglo-Americans
3,478 Tejanos,
14,200 Indians, of which 8,000 belonged to civilized tribes that had migrated from the United States
5,000 slaves

Otherwise, the cause of the revolt, Santa Ana dumping the 1824 Constitution, and implementing a more centralized, authoritarian government, alienated quite a few of Mexican background, and a number of other regions in Mexico went into revolt around the same time (like Yucutan).

All the same, the American Americans were largely of protestant background, pro-slavery, and desired to join the US. Some may have still felt the US bought it with the La purchase (like Andrew Jackson did), or not particularly care about Tejas/Mexican property rights.

What is funny is there were rumors of Mexico looking to bring over Irish, to Califoria. I think that was played up in the 1840s, to fire up the jingoism, along with rumors that California was going to be given to the British or French to pay for debts.

Would have made an interesting counterfactual history if New Spain/Mexico did successfullybring over Irish in sufficient numbers (the island was overpopulated and a bit tense).

I'm not in favor of breaking up the U.S. Still, I take it as a point of basic common sense that something can't be a union without its opposite being possible. Perhaps (probably) we're an indivisible country, but that's different.

The Supreme Court's decision is meaningless; citing something decided in 1869 (at a time when recent events almost certainly had emotional weight that pressed heavily on the decision) is ridiculous given the large number of its decisions of that era that have been reversed either by its own later decisions or by Congressional or Constitutional action. Which means that as far as secession's proponents are concerned, it's law only until it isn't, in the sense of having no dissuasive value. By comparison, think of proponents of the legalization of marijuana. Does pointing out that it's illegal make a difference to people's ideas of what the situation should be?

In any case, since you cite the attempt forcibly to secede, military success in some sense trails its own legitimacy; if the South had won the Civil War, the decisions of the Supreme Court of a then "now-foreign" country would have become irrelevant.

Actually its not meaningless. The Supreme court has the power of judicial review, and is a leading organ for setting precedents for the political culture (giving convention the papal wave, or overturning it).

How many Supreme Court decisions during the era of reconstruction do you think have been outright reversed/overturned?

I can think of segregation (like Plessy vs Ferguson), but that was reversed again in the 1950s.

As for acts, 1869 was not long after the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments came into force. Those are some big ones in American history.

Precedents have power only to the extent people grant them power. A single case prompted by a unique historical event 143 years ago has next to no precedential value. The legality of secession today, especially consensual secession, would essentially be reviewed as a case of first impression.

I don't think so. Sorry, you had a large civil conflict prior to that too underscoring a legal point. The precedent has been clearly set as Scalia pointed out, even if consensual secession was at issue.

If it's consensual, there'd be no legal suit to bring. On non-consensual secession, Scalia apparently finds some precedent but he's probably in the minority. The constitutional lawyers at Volkh disagree with him.

The Civil War is a pretty big giant precedent, that clearly set convention. A bunch lawyers are not going to be able to dance around that one.

Consensual secession for a state would probably be nearly impossible. Considering border changes of states, carving a state out of another, etc. requires congressional approval, can't see that process going very smoothly. Especially if there are minority groups within state in question that are strongly opposed.

Only a commonwealth splitting sounds about the most frictionless scenario - Say Puerto Rico going its own way.

Texas joined the Union as a free Republic; why shouldn't Texans have a right to return to that if they choose?

Your logic is flawed because of one central premise. "All Americans" -- that is not how our Union was envisioned. We aren't 'Americans', we are citizens of a State first and the United States second. If the majority of citizens of a state choose to leave, best of luck to them (I think it's a stupid decision, but nobody can tell them they don't have that right. Will of the people/self-determination/popular sovereignty).

We are Americans. That is why the preamble of the United States reads "we the people of the United States of America"

As for Texas, most were Americans or former Americans, wanting to join the Republic up almost off the bat after independence from Mexico. For good reason, Mexico was still a threat, as demonstrated by a series of raids, and they had huge financial problems.

People against slavery were holding things up, not wanting another slave state to join the Union.

Otherwise, the Federal government assumed Texas' debts by the way following annexation, and owns to this day significant amounts of property.

Generally it is recognized a supermajority is needed for a fundamental political change. Like should a majority of people be able to vote to eliminate your voting rights?

Texas joined the Union as a free Republic; why shouldn't Texans have a right to return to that if they choose?
Because they agreed not to when they joined. These things are not usually set up "as long as we both shall groove" or whatnot. The Texas option, agreed to when they joined the Union, is to split into five smaller states.

Yes to self-deportation. Have those extremists pick up and go somewhere (Mexico?), and make sure the door doesn't hit them on the fanny.

Otherwise,the states there are actually quite nice. Also, the eastern half of the old cotton belt seems on its way to becoming a new medium to advanced manufacturing belt, based on:
- lots of land
- Cheap energy (I think still, like with the TVA)
- Minimal unionism
- Business friendly state governments
- A foundation of successful foreign FDI (notably Japanese and German in auto)
- Lots of resources
- Good universities nearby (at least in my mom's state of NC ;-) )

So some things look on the up.

Otherwise, why hurt those who don't want to leave (which seems like 99% of the population)?

This isn't the first or second time you've expressed that racist view. It would be a much better country if we could expel all those who want to expel African-Americans. Maybe that wasn't your intent by it's what you're advocating in fact.

No, the _Federal government_ spends more in those places than they pay in taxes. If you subtract the programs the Republicans there don't want (or say they don't), like Medicare and Medicaid, the figures look pretty different.

Interestingly, expelling all of the former Confederate states from the Union would also mean expelling half of the African-American population as well. About 49% still live in the former Confederacy. I doubt that they would be thrilled with that scenario.

"Interestingly, expelling all of the former Confederate states from the Union would also mean expelling half of the African-American population as well"

Yeah...LOL. I also find that interesting, how the ones that love to bash the south because of its "racist ways", conveniently left out that majority of AfricanAmericans live there - also the constant gloating about how the "south is poor, backward, and the most dependant on the feds" while ignoring that are precisely those large portions of AfAms communities the ones that makes them poorer.

Now if only they switched populations, send their AfAms to the north and get all those scandiamericans from the Dakotas and Wisconsin who knows what happens.

The other thing people forget when talking about "backward" conservatives of the south, and how they should secede, is how easy they forget that other large mass of the country that is the midwest and the mountain states. If they think that racists are only to be found in Alabama, they need to check Idaho and Wyoming. LOL.

I find it stupid to be illegal to secceed. When the sentiment is very strong there should be a referendum. If 51% of Texans want to leave the union, they should leave. It is their right of self-determination. Who are we to hold them by force? Across history various unions were made and then broke. Some of them lasted for 1000 years. US is nothing special.

Why 51%? Considering the amendment process requires super majorities, and changes in boundaries and citizenship and potentially even rights are pretty significant.
`
Otherwise, if you have a representative government giving its citizens an equal voice and securing their political rights fully, then makes sense to prohibit secession as part of the constitutional ground ruless, as a firewall to extremism. People have to abide by decisions legally reached or you leave an opening for anarchy.
`
Democracies have a right to defend themselves, especially against racists and followers of various extreme ideologies.

Secessionists are not extremists. Non-secessionsts are also not extremists. I'm just saying that if over 50% of Texans would want to leave it is also better for the US to let them leave. Immagine all the issues that they will create by being forced to stay in a Union that they don't like. And they will start to hate US even more. (look at the UK and EU)) It is a hypothetical situation of course, nowhere near that now.

It's not the end of the world. Sudan for example broke up in two last year. For me, I was never in Texas and never planning to go there. Completely different country anyway as someone else said before.

With empowered electorates enjoying full political rights in an established representative democracy, secessionists are extremists. Basically trying to change the fundamental ground rules of a political system, in an irresponsible and aggressive manner.

The slavers back in 1860 were extremists, and so are some of the fringe groups today, like that Alaskan independence party that Sarah Palin's husband joined. I won't go into neo-nazi types, white supremecists, militia men types, or variants of David Duke and his map of old.

Major changes to the US constitution require more than just 50% of the vote. Considering peoples' wealth and rights could be negatively impacted by such a plebescite , it is probably reasonable to expect a higher bar - like 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the electorate approving such a change.

'secessionists are extremists' is a disingenuous claim. Undoubtedly there are crazies and nutjobs in the secessionist movement; such people exist in every cultural and political movement.

Bu secession is not in and of itself extremist, nor should it be illegal. The Articles of Confederation had a clause concerning 'perpetual union'. The US Constitution does not. A large number of people who wrote the first also wrote the second. Why did they take that out? Secession should be the last resort of an empowered electorate in a representative democracy; it is an embody of the will of the people and their right to self-determination. Should the Scots not be free from the UK, or the Catalans from Spain, if they so choose? I don't think so.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence.

THESE United States of America were founded upon secession with just cause. I do not think we have just cause for secession today, but it should certainly be a viable and legal option. I am not a secessionist, but I support any secessionists right to be one.

Why do democracies have an especial right to defend themselves against "racists and followers of various extreme ideologies"? That's a ridiculous distinction. It also doesn't take much of a leap from that point to say we have a "right" to attack those people in other countries.

As to "why 51%," that's the percentage required to let Puerto Rico in as a state. The same should be required for getting out as getting in. And what about Scottish independence? I don't think they're required to have a supermajority.

The US Constitution built upon the Articles of Confederation, as indicated by the reference to "a more perfect Union."

Then there are explicit prohibitions against states forming alliances, confederations, etc., as well as infringing on US property.

Any changes in boundaries, or forming states out of other states require approval of the US Congress.

That is all in there.

Secession is an extreme act because a party is trying to fundamentally change the ground rules of a political system, namely detaching territory and setting up an alternative political system, whose character may not be so clear, stable or just.

As for the Declaration of Independence, that was penned in an environment where colonists felt they lacked representation in the British metropolitan political system. I am criticizing secession in the context of a functioning representative, liberal democratic system, where the participants have protected rights and a voice though regular elections, the abilty to petition the government for grievances, etc.

That was actually a huge point in political discussions/theory in immediate post-WWII Western Europe, given the weakness of the Third Republic in France, the experiences of the Weimar Republic in Germany, the rise of the Fascists in Italy, uncertainty over the communist parties in France and Italy after the war, etc.

I didn't just make that one up out of thin air. Its not ridiculous, its was a legitimate concern once at least, spurned on by real suffering.

So having ground rules to make it absolutely clear the integrity of the state and political rights of all segments of the population cannot be messed with as part of the political arena, I think is a good thing.

Not sure about the second sentence. But the US eventually had to engage in military conflict with a Nazi led German government. It later got into a prolonged standoff with a Communist Soviet Union.

I actually agree that Puerto Rico should have a super majority to ratify joining the US, especially with secession being illegal.

I think the constitutionalism amendment process is too onerous. It should allow for amendment by a stable majority. Say, a simple majority that lasts 20 years.

A firewall to extremism? What if the unionists are the extremists? I'm picturing Stalin arguing that the Soviet Union is a firewall against capitalist extremists. There should be a name for this kind of bias where one assumes that they'll always be the majority.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

1. Scotland was once an independent country that was forced into the Union with England. They aren't seceding, but rather re-gaining their independence. Not some kind of "self-determination".

2. Catalonia was never an independent country or region for that matter. What is now known as Catalonia was numerous kingdoms and primarily the Kingdom of Aragon before it became part of Spain well over 600 years ago. Catalan is more of a culture than an ethnicity that wants to secede, not because of any sort of "self-determination" or anything of the sort.

The 49% who voted no could sell out and move with their capital to the States. That's perfectly fair. In any case, your argument is an argument for geographical gridlock-- nothing will ever change if "think of the fairness to the minority" is trump.

Scotland wasn't forced into the union with England; the monarch of both nations was the same and the influential people thought Scotland would be richer for the union. Which, in fact, it was. In any case, Texas was also an independent country.

So what you're saying is that a country has the right to impose its values upon others if it's certain that those values are correct? Everyone's certain their values are correct. Basically, you're a crusader. This ties in with my theory that the Left and religions are essentially similar as forms of organized morality, with similar risks and excesses.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that "Texas" is a natural expression of national determination. What if 51% of Texans decide to secede, but 99% of voters in Austin do not? Can Austin then secede from Texas? Isn't that expressing self-determination?

This was one of the big debates that scared a lot of voters away from voting for independence in Quebec. Montreal and the First Nations areas in the North basically said that if Quebec gets the right to secede, then they should too.

It's worth noting that the US Civil War only really resolved this question through the Southern states using military force to stamp out local, pro-union secessionist movements, like in east Tennessee. This is pretty much where West Virginia came from.

The most hilarious/amusing thing to me in all this is the people who are completely dismissive about the possibility of a disunion.
-
The Fundamental cause of revolts and revolts succeeding is when one side dismisses/underestimates the other side.
-
This has occurred countless times in history, from the Bolsheviks in Russia to the Maoist victory over the Nationalist in China.
-
Personally I find it all academic and have no personal stake, since I will have long moved to Australia/New Zealnd/Singapore by the time things deteriorate in the US. I just find the complete denial that theres something fundamentally wrong by commentators on here and the Economist as outright hilarious.
-
Western Denialism at its best, it gets better and better.

What's more hilarious and amusing is someone citing China and Russia as examples of positive disunion when China's ongoing civil disunions and strife alone over the last 1000 years has caused a death toll into the hundreds of millions that cause China to fall into deep poverty and backwardness that it only started to come out only 30 years ago. Or made Russia embrace a political ideology that also caused millions of deaths, economic and technological backwardness and ultimately its collapse.

Denial? I see it in your outlook in the west. Western countries staying unified, especially compared to China alone, is the reason why they were able to maintain their economic and technological superiority all of this time.

In no place did he say such things were 'positive', merely that they occur all the time. Britain has an independence referendum regarding Scotland in 2014, Catalonia is trying to break free of Spain now. It is a naive and arrogant belief to think that the boundaries of a nation are fixed and will not take into account the will of the people. The end result may be worse than the previous status quo, but that is irrelevant when it comes to the decision being made.

Oh and thanks for going off on a totally random rant about something I made absolutely no reference to.
-
Positive disunion?
-
I should try that sometime, Next time when someone is talking about rainbows i should bring up how they're a government conspiracy.

It sure hasn't stopped you and your fellows from moving to a Western Country, reading this Western Newspaper and posting and trolling anti-Western comments in its online message board has it?
I couldn't ask for better proof of idiocy and irony in the same paragraph. Thank YOU for going off on a totally random anti-Western pro-China 50 cent army rant about something NO ONE made absolutely no reference to.